The Heinz Dilemma (Kohlberg)
In Europe a woman was near death from a very special kind of cancer. There
was one drug that doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that
a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive
to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make.
He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug.
The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money,
but he could only get together about $1,000, which is half of what it cost.
He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper
or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and
I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the
man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have done that? Why?
(from http://www.cce.umn.edu/dis/courses/CPSY1301_8283_02.www/course/13.html)
Cases like Heinz Dilemma are commonplace in Ethics Testing
- A true dilemma for which there is no right answer
- Theft and jail time versus death of a loved one
- The originator of this dilemma, Kohlberg, doesn't care what your
answer is
- He cares about why you picked the answer
- And judges your ethical sophistication based on why you picked your
answer.
- Real life ethical problems usually aren't like this
- While the collision of ethical principles remains
- The conflict is rarely so stark
- The participants are rarely so insensitive
- The consequences rarely so severe
- or at least are not as obvious
- and when they are,
- other solutions are often available
- e.g. going to the press with the problem
- That said, it is the first question in the most commonly used Ethics Instrument
- The Defining Issues Test (DIT)
- Widely Used
- The Current Gold Standard in Ethics Testing
- But the theory it is based on, and which it explicitly tests, is controversial
- Developed entirely based on studies of white male prep students
- Generally thought to reflect a strong male bias
So what would be more realistic:
Harriett is a staff analyst at a mid-sized company with a family and a desire
to become a manager. Her current project is due the next morning. At 4:45 in
the afternoon she realizes that while the project only needs a little bit more
work, she needs to stay at the office late in order to finish it on time. Should
Harriett leave for home right at the companies 5:00 closing and satisfy her
family obligations or stay late at work and get the project done on time?
- The principles aren't as earth shattering death or prison
- But they are exactly the kind of principles
- that we most commonly have to resolve
- for some this is an almost daily dilemma
- Some may question whether this is a question of ethics
- For the moment let us simply label it a collision of values:
- the work ethic, reflecting the Rokeach values
- "a sense of accomplishment" (terminal)
- "ambitious" (instrumental)
- "responsible" (instrumental)
- the family ethic, reflecting the Rokeach values
- "family security" (terminal)
- "loving" (instrumental)
- "responsible" (instrumental)
- And note that there is potential harm associated with either decision
- harm at work in leaving the work undone
- harm to the family in either decision
Another realistic example
A photographer, in the course of trailing the First Family on vacation, catches
a shot of the 17 year old daughter of the President, on the beach, kissing a
young secret service agent. The photographer sells the picture to several large
media outlets, including People magazine, the New York Daily News, News of the
World, and Fox News. Should these publications publish the picture?
- This isn't, of course, a decision that each of us faces each day
- It is, however, a decision that each of us faces the consequences of each
day
- Like all true ethical problems, each decision contains potential harms:
- to the daughter
- to the agent
- to the Secret Service
- to the President
- and even to truth itself
- that are constituted in a set of conflicting values
- The right of privacy
- which inhere with particular strength to minors
- but which many people believe is surrendered with fame
- especially for public figures
- Expectations of professional behavior
- there is enough smoke in any kiss of the famous to light speculative
fires
- but a secret service agent should be above such things
- especially with a daughter he is sworn to protect
- Freedom of the Press
- we have a right to know
- pretty much anything a photographer can make money selling
Another every day example
Its lunch time. You are hungry, but your work is seriously backed up and
you want to get home to your family at a reasonable hour. You can take 45 minutes
for lunch, talk with friends and eat a healthy meal of soup and a salad or you
can grab a hamburger and some fries and take them back to your office. Do you
take the time to relax and eat healthy or do you eat the fast food and get home
earlier.
- Again, we face a collision of goals and values:
- Getting home on time
- Getting the job done
- Taking time to enjoy life and friends
- Staying healthy
- And a set of harms
- To our work
- To our family
- To our health
- To our friendships
- Among these harms the former are fairly immediate
- while the latter are longer term
- but as with Hienz Dilemma, one decision can kill us